On 13 July 2026, members of the Indigenous Ateta clan from Sumuri District, Teluk Bintuni Regency, West Papua Province, staged a peaceful protest beginning at approximately 07.00 am at the Office of Agrarian Affairs and Spatial Planning/National Land Agency (ATR/BPN) in Teluk Bintuni Regency.
The protest concerned alleged encroachment on approximately 32,000 hectares of Ateta customary land and disputed Right to Cultivate (Hak Guna Usaha, HGU) certificates associated with oil palm plantation operations. The protesters subsequently filed a police report concerning alleged irregularities in the issuance of land titles and the installation of boundary markers bearing the name of PT BSP on their customary territory. The case raises serious concerns regarding the protection of indigenous land rights, meaningful consultation and free, prior and informed consent (FPIC) in relation to commercial activities affecting customary territories.
On 11 July 2026, Ateta clan leader Mr Benidiktus Ateta issued a public call inviting students, young people, indigenous land-rights defenders and environmental activists in Teluk Bintuni Regency and across West Papua to participate in a peaceful protest. The appeal alleged that the Teluk Bintuni Regency ATR/BPN Office was facilitating activities benefiting PT BSP on Ateta customary land. The demonstration was scheduled for 13 July 2026 at the Teluk Bintuni Regency ATR/BPN Office, beginning at 07.00 Papua Time.
On 13 July, members of the indigenous community protested at the ATR/BPN Office and the Teluk Bintuni Regency Environment Agency before proceeding to the Teluk Bintuni Regency Police Station, where they submitted a complaint to the Integrated Police Service Centre (SPKT). The community was accompanied by a representative of the West Papua People's Assembly (MRP). According to Benidiktus Ateta, the complaint concerned alleged "land mafia" activities relating to the disputed certificates and the placement of PT BSP boundary markers on Ateta customary land.
The dispute has its origins in oil palm operations reportedly conducted by PT Varita Maju Tama in Sumuri District for approximately three decades. According to community representative Dion Ateta, PT Varita obtained access to the customary territory in 1997 through approval from the then district authorities without involving the indigenous community. The Manokwari Land Agency subsequently issued HGU documentation. Following PT Varita's reported bankruptcy or liquidation, some of its assets were allegedly transferred to PT BSP, including land claimed by the Ateta clan as approximately 32,000 hectares of customary territory.
The Ateta community reported subsequently discovering boundary markers bearing the name PT BSP on its customary land. Hendri S. Paru, Head of the Teluk Bintuni Regency Land Agency, confirmed that the markers had been installed by PT BSP rather than by the BPN. He further stated that PT BSP's acquisition of PT Varita had taken place in Jakarta but that the relevant administrative procedures had not yet been completed and that, administratively, the land documentation remained registered under PT Varita.
Significant disagreement remains regarding the status and ownership of the disputed certificates. Community representatives demanded transparency concerning certificates issued by the BPN to PT BSP. Hendri S. Paru disputed this characterisation, explaining that only three certificates were associated with the company, whilst more than 2,000 others were likely associated with transmigrant farmers under plantation schemes. He stated that PT Varita's certificates had been issued in 1997 and remained valid until 2032.
The protesters submitted 11 demands, including cancellation of HGU certificates; clarification of the boundaries of the area concerned; protection of indigenous peoples' rights; transparency regarding the disputed certificates; public consultation before any HGU extension; revocation of the HGU associated with PT BSP; an investigation into the circumstances in which the land titles were issued; and disclosure of the consent on which the issuance of the certificates had allegedly been based. The Ateta clan insisted that any action affecting its customary territory must be preceded by consultation with the indigenous rights-holders.
Human rights analysis
The allegations raise concerns regarding the rights of indigenous peoples to their traditionally owned, occupied and used lands, territories and natural resources. The Ateta clan maintains that it never authorised the alienation of the customary territory concerned and has specifically requested that the authorities disclose whose consent formed the basis for the disputed land titles. Under international human rights standards, indigenous peoples' relationships with ancestral lands extend beyond formal title and encompass customary ownership, occupation and use. UN human rights standards require particular safeguards where business activities affect indigenous lands and resources, including consultation through indigenous peoples' own representative institutions and attention to FPIC.
The reported absence of indigenous participation when plantation rights were initially established in 1997, if substantiated, would therefore warrant careful examination. The Ateta clan alleges that PT Varita obtained access to its customary territory through approval by government authorities without involving the indigenous rights-holders. The UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights has emphasised that indigenous peoples' cultural values and rights associated with ancestral lands are particularly vulnerable to business activities and that States and businesses should respect FPIC in decisions affecting indigenous lands, territories and resources. It further calls for human rights impact assessments and good-faith consultation through indigenous peoples' own representative institutions.
The case also engages the State duty to protect against business-related human rights abuses and the corresponding corporate responsibility to respect human rights. Under the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, States should maintain an adequate regulatory framework and provide effective remedies, whilst companies should conduct human rights due diligence to identify, prevent, mitigate and account for adverse impacts. This responsibility applies independently of whether domestic authorities have fulfilled their own obligations. Accordingly, any proposed transfer, extension, surveying or exploitation of plantation rights affecting Ateta customary territory should be preceded by transparent clarification of land tenure, meaningful engagement with affected rights-holders and appropriate assessment of potential human rights, social, cultural and environmental impacts.
Detailed case data
Document ID: HRM-CAS-136-2026
Location: Sumuri, Teluk Bintuni Regency, West Papua, Indonesia (-2.537116, 133.2587673)
Region: Indonesia > West Papua > Teluk Bintuni > Sumuri
Total number of victims: hundreds
1. Hundreds, diverse unknown Indigenous Peoples cultural rights
Period of incident: 13/07/2026-13/07/2026
Perpetrators:
Private Company
Republic Indonesia > Government
Perpetrator details: PT BSP
Issues: business, human rights and FPIC